Help!! Residency Obligation question

[ramansingh05]

Your wife is just a little bit less than 730 days rules when your cards expired. Just wait until she fulfill RO then you are OK to submit application for new card. I can't see why you need to wait 2 years. 731 days is more than enough (if you don't make calculation mistake) to renew your new card.

She is short by approx 31 days of 730 days due to which this can't be accomplish in 5 yrs and need to wait till Sep23 to fulfil the RO requirement.

 

[dpenabill]

Your wife is just a little bit less than 730 days rules when your cards expired. Just wait until she fulfill RO then you are OK to submit application for new card. I can't see why you need to wait 2 years. 731 days is more than enough (if you don't make calculation mistake) to renew your new card.

@ramansingh05 nails it.

But I will continue to address the OP's situation in detail, and depth, because it offers a particularly good illustrative example for illuminating the rules, how they apply, and general principles for decision-making based on them, a good example for explaining how the system works and concepts about how to better navigate it.

As a general rule, right, "wait until she fulfill RO then you are OK to submit application for new card."

HOWEVER, she will NOT have 731 days RO credit before September 5, 2023. That is, she will not "fulfill RO" until she has stayed IN Canada at least 730 days since she arrived here September 5, 2021.

It appears you have overlooked the fact that any days in Canada more than five years ago do NOT count for credit toward the RO. Days here following her landing, March 21, 2018, begin to fall out of the relevant five years, and will not count, as of March 22, 2023.

EXPLANATION:

The OP has reported different numbers for his spouse, but they are not much different. She was continuously outside Canada either 1126 or 1122 days after landing, up to her return to Canada September 5, 2021. Since both are significantly more than 1095, there is no difference in their substantive effect; that is, either way she must stay in Canada at least two years since her arrival in September 2021 to get into RO compliance.

In the following explanation I will use the 1126 days absent figure based on the OP's more recent report she is 31 days short of RO compliance.

The OP's spouse landed March 21, 2018. The RO calculation for the first five years is based on days in Canada plus days left until the fifth year anniversary. Since she has already been outside Canada 1126 days, there is NO way she can accumulate 730 days credit by the fifth year anniversary. At most, counting days in Canada so far plus days left, she will have only 699 days credit. Short. Not in compliance.

As of March 22, 2023 the RO compliance calculation will be based on days in Canada during the previous five years. As long as the OP's spouse STAYS in Canada in the meantime, counting days and calculating RO compliance is very simple arithmetic.

Some examples based on the date a PR card application is made:

-- Calculation for PRC application made March 25, 2023 will be based on days in Canada between March 25, 2018 and March 25, 2023: 699.​

-- Calculation for PRC application made April 21, 2023 will be based on days in Canada between April 21, 2018 and April 21, 2023: 699; no credit for days in Canada between March 21, 2018 and April 21, 2018, since those days are outside the relevant five years.​

-- Calculation for PRC application made July 3, 2023 will be based on days in Canada between July 3, 2018 and July 3, 2023: probably still 699; again no credit for days in Canada between March 21, 2018 and July 3, 2018, since those days are outside the relevant five years.​

-- Calculation for PRC application made September 6, 2023 will be based on days in Canada between September 6, 2018 and September 6, 2023: 731, assuming arrival here September 5, 2021 and staying here in the meantime.​

For Further Consideration I; Risk-assessment Basics:

. . . I am asking if we can apply on H&C grounds
. . . we are worried when we can renew her PR card which is expring in Mar23 and she lived more than 1095 days outside of Canada.

For the OP, @ramansingh05, or the OP's wife in particular, @armoured has clarified the question, how to approach this decision-making.

But I want to address the risk assessment process in a little more detail which I hope will help illuminate why it is so difficult to address the OP's continuing inquiries in regards to deciding, for example, whether to proceed with a PR card application early, despite the risk, perhaps relying on H&C relief (formally or informally). A big part of this is being aware of tipping points and their potential impact on how things go, which is also relevant to the discussions about @bricksonly's situation in regards to RO compliance screening for a PR accompanying their Canadian citizen spouse abroad. And I will get to tipping points in another post.

But first, to put the decision-making process in context it warrants remembering that risk assessment is at least Three-Pronged. In this forum the focus is too often about just one prong, the odds of a negative result: for example, what are the chances that IRCC will prepare a 44(1) Report and issue a Removal Order? But two other prongs are also important:

-- what is at stake? (What are the potential consequences? An inconvenience? Severe hardship? Catastrophic, recognizing that for some a loss of PR status can be catastrophic?)​

-- what is to be gained?​

For the OP, @ramansingh05, or for the OP's wife in particular, again @armoured has clarified what they need to know, how to approach this decision-making. A PR's status does not depend on having a valid PR card. Since the wife is IN Canada, she can stay and if she stays long enough to be in compliance that cures the breach of the RO. So, why take any risks by applying for a new PR card before she is in compliance? Why does she need a valid PR card? For what purpose? And, even if there is a particular reason, is that reason compelling enough to take the risk of losing PR status?

Meaning, if the odds are very good she would not encounter a RO problem when returning to Canada again, from abroad, following a short trip in October or November this year, or the odds are very good an early PR card application will go OK, knowing the odds are good does not necessarily mean it is a good idea to take the risk. What's at stake? (PR status) What's to be gained? Remember, the odds playing Russian Roulette are very good, five to one odds you hear a click when you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger, just one in six odds you hear nothing because you just blew out your brains. Good odds do not tell the whole story. Not even close.

To be clear, nonetheless, just calculating the odds of a negative outcome is very difficult, and in most respects we cannot quantify those odds. Way too many variables, contingencies, and unknowns (the particular criteria or standards employed by CBSA or IRCC for example), to be any more precise than ballpark generalities. Like, the bigger the breach, the bigger the risk of a negative outcome. Efforts to more precisely quantify the risks are a fool's errand at best.

And to illustrate individual variables, looking at the what-is-at-stake risk assessment element, and this is a factor the OP and spouse might consider if there is a pressing need for her to travel abroad before getting into compliance, as long as one of them maintains their PR status, being Reported and losing PR status is not as severe as it would be for many other PRs, since the spouse keeping PR can sponsor the other for PR anew.

All of which goes to the extent of variables from case to case, person to person, making it virtually impossible to proffer any general "best practices" guide . . . except the baseline, for-sure consensus, if in breach best to not go abroad, not apply for a new PR card, not apply to sponsor a child.

A long way around to saying, in response to the further queries by @ramansingh05, sorry, we really cannot offer much more guidance about how it will go, for example, applying for a PR card early, relying on H&C relief.

IN CONTRAST, however, depending on circumstances, we can map some factors to more-or-less likely results. The fact the OP's wife was not "Reported" upon arrival here last September, despite being in breach of the RO at that time, for example, is no surprise to veteran forum participants. That said, the consensus here, if asked before that, would have been to encourage her to get here, IF POSSIBLE, before being abroad so long as to breach the RO, and in any event the sooner the better, the sooner the lower the risk.

The OP's spouse was 31 days short. Not a big breach. There were (still are) other factors leaning in the wife's favour, but the fact she was just 31 days short of compliance was likely a big factor in her not being reported when she arrived here last September. This is consistent with numerous anecdotal reports, including PRs arriving here to settle (at least ostensibly) significantly later (closer to the expiration date of their first PR card) than the OP's spouse. This has been so common there has been some tendency to underestimate if not overlook the risks. And, in particular, to overlook the other key considerations in making decisions based on risk assessment: what is at stake, and what is to be gained.

 

[dpenabill]

For Further Consideration II; tipping points:

This is a lengthy, too convoluted (sorry, best I can do) example for illustration, focusing on the size of the breach factor in RO enforcement. It will seem picky, but it is to illustrate how one factor can have a variable impact on how things go.

We well know, even if we cannot quantify its effect on the odds, that a big factor, usually the biggest factor, in how things go if and when a PR is in breach of the RO, is how much in breach of the RO the PR is. The bigger the breach, the bigger the risk of strict scrutiny, and the bigger the risk of a negative outcome (being "Reported," possibly losing PR status).

I do not mean to dive too deeply into the subject of tipping points and risk assessment, here, which is complicated with lots of tangents, and it risks getting bogged down in game-theory, which is above the pay grade of many university level mathematics professors, let alone those of us wrangling with the Canadian immigration system. Which again is why the consensus here generally sticks to what is simple, like when in breach of the RO do not leave Canada and do not apply for a PR card.

But recognizing tipping points, and related pitfalls, can be important for a PR is seriously considering options that involve additional risk.

Foremost a reminder (apologies for harping on this), and this very much goes to the OP's further queries, most veteran participants here rightly emphasize (1) AVOIDING RISKS if possible (such as: if in breach of the RO, do not leave Canada and do not apply for a PR card), or (2) at the least choosing the LOWEST RISK option (such as: if abroad and in RO breach, return to Canada sooner rather than later). But real life has wrinkles, stuff happens, real people have competing priorities and variable needs. And after all, to live is to take risks.

For purposes of assessing risks there is a tendency to ask what are the odds it will be OK versus NOT OK. Like, if I am in breach of the RO by a little, but now well settled in Canada, still have a valid PR card, and need to take a short trip abroad, will I be OK when I return or Reported? But real life risk assessment is a lot more complicated than that, which again risks getting into game-theory, and no, no, no, we do not want to go there (piercing headache just thinking about it).

But tipping points also loom large in how things can go and can be a key factor when considering taking options involving risks, in particular for a PR in breach considering taking the risk of relying on H&C relief, whether to apply for a new PR card early, or traveling abroad while in RO breach. As mentioned, repeatedly, we cannot quantify the probabilities any more precisely than ballpark generalities. The bigger the breach, the bigger the risk of a negative outcome, is about the best we can do.

However, the overall risk can be misleading. Which makes it all the more difficult to grasp any quantifiable sense of the probabilities. Barely skimming the surface of this, one example: as outlined above, the OP's spouse had overall very good odds there would be no RO problem when she arrived here last September, DESPITE being in breach at the time. And a big positive factor was the size of the breach; just 31 days.

Leading to one example of a major tipping point: the difference between a casual waive through at the PoE versus a decision to prepare a 44(1) inadmissibility Report. That is the difference between:

-- casual questions, perhaps including some in regards to the RO, perhaps including an informal recognition of H&C factors, resulting in a decision to allow the PR to proceed without further examination as to RO compliance, VERSUS​

-- more thorough RO compliance related questions resulting in a decision to prepare a 44(1) inadmissibility Report​

The first is a pass. No further risk. Once the PR is in Canada IRCC will not go looking for them despite their breach of the RO. This is true whether the PR has been abroad 1126 days since landing or 1426 days. There was a higher risk the latter would not get this casual waive through, but once they did, once PoE officials gave them the pass, the risk then is the same for both: NO risk of being Reported unless they initiate some other status-dependent transaction with IRCC or CBSA (apply for a PR card, or arrive at a PoE again after a trip abroad).

HOWEVER, the calculus changes if there is a closer examination resulting in a 44(1) Report. That initiates the formal, official adjudication of status. A second officer (this usually takes place while the PR is still in the PoE) reviews the Report, determines if it is valid in law, and if it is valid in law then considers H&C factors and whether the PR should be allowed to keep PR status despite the RO breach.

The tipping point here is oriented to the decision about whether the Report is valid in law. Close does not count. 729 days credit toward RO compliance does not make it. If in breach, the report is valid in law. How it goes from here depends on whether the H&C case tips in favour of allowing the PR to keep status. (Note, focus on this factor is for illustration; there are many other factors that will influence how things go in the particular case.)

In contrast, 730 days RO credit does cut it. That meets the RO. No breach. Should not have been a Report. If there was, it is not valid in law and will be set aside.

So both the first and second officers (the second technically acting as the Minister's Delegate) calculate RO credit. For the PR still within five years of landing, days left on the calendar to the fifth year anniversary count. A practical approach is to simply subtract the number of days outside Canada, since landing, from 1825. If that sum is 729 or less, there is a RO breach. If that sum is 730 or more, no breach. (That is, if absent for less than 1096 days, no breach; if more than that, in breach).

Bringing this around to considering the size of the breach. And back to the observation that the overall odds can be misleading. And to the tipping point. But not overlooking that the decision made by the first officer (and similarly the PIL officer before that), about whether to even ask detailed questions about RO compliance, likely were at least partially influenced by the number of days short, generally (while probably also influenced by some consideration for H&C factors, like covid, that being the obvious one these days).

Finally getting to the point: once the 44(1) Report is prepared, and how it goes depends on weighing H&C factors, suddenly the "size of the breach" can be, seems it usually is, subject to a very different calculation.

Using the wife's example, arriving last September: At that time, for purposes of calculating RO compliance, she had 699 days RO credit (and still that today). And a rough estimate of that could easily have been (probably was) a positive factor in the PIL officer's decision to waive her into Canada without further RO-related questioning. Or, even if she was questioned some in Secondary, still a significant factor in waiving her through without a more strict assessment, without preparing a 44(1) Report. Which, as noted, is consistent with lots of recent anecdotal reporting. Fairly easy to forecast good odds in that scenario.

BUT . . . at that time, in September 2021, she had been IN Canada just 136 days . . . way, way short of 730 days. That is not just 31 days short. That is nearly 600 days short. Big breach. Negative H&C factor.

A few years ago, when I first saw an IAD panel denying an appeal in significant part based on a "big breach" of the RO, and not giving the PR any credit for days left until the PR's fifth year anniversary, I thought that was wrong. I thought the PR should have been given that credit in the H&C assessment. Illustrating I am no expert and I get some of this stuff wrong (but always working on getting it right). After seeing this show up in other cases I understood the calculus better. There is the technical side of it, of course, that once a 44(1) Report is prepared, days in Canada after that do not count. So, yeah, technically in the calculation of RO compliance, before a 44(1) Report is prepared the PR gets credit for days left on the calendar to the fifth year anniversary, but once the Report is prepared those days do not count (unless the Report is set aside) even if the PR actually is in Canada those days, let alone could be. But just within orbit of why the size of the breach matters, it is not just about how far off compliance the PR is, but about looking at the nature and extent to which the PR is tied to and vested in a life in Canada. There is a clear difference, in this connection, between the PR who has spent 136 days in Canada and the PR who has actually spent 699 days in Canada, even though for purposes of whether or not there was a breach of the RO, they both got 699 days credit.

Which leads back to the biggest tipping point: 730 days credit. And why veteran participants are so focused on meeting that threshold. Skip the convoluted pitfall-ridden nuances. Ignore my lengthy analysis. Avoid the risk. Stay on the compliance side of the equation. Otherwise, even if the odds of things going OK are good, the chances otherwise are many, and what could tip things that way too often less than obvious.

 

[GuyanaGirl]

I am not sure if he truly keeps asking the same question over and over again, or if he is just trolling.

I think OP understands the answers given , but might be looking for a different answer or a way around the RO for early renewal.

 

[ramansingh05]

I repeat: you can wait instead and just NOT renew her PR card until she is back in compliance. She does NOT need the PR card to live and work in Canada.

Problem solved.

I am living in Canada. I landed in Mar 2018 and I'll be completing my 730/5yrs around Feb2023. So Can I apply for renewal? It says that you can apply before 9 months when your PR Card will be expiring. I will easily complete 730 days before Mar2023 or Do I need to wait till Feb 2023 to complete 730 days first? Please let me know

 

[ramansingh05]

I am living in Canada. I landed ini Mar 2018 and I'll be completing my 730/5yrs around Feb2023. So Can I apply for renewal? It says that you can apply before 9 months when your PR Card will be expiring. I will easily complete 730 days before Mar2023 or Do I need to wait till Feb 2023 to complete 730 days first? Please let me know

 

[ramansingh05]

For Further Consideration II; tipping points:

This is a lengthy, too convoluted (sorry, best I can do) example for illustration, focusing on the size of the breach factor in RO enforcement. It will seem picky, but it is to illustrate how one factor can have a variable impact on how things go.

We well know, even if we cannot quantify its effect on the odds, that a big factor, usually the biggest factor, in how things go if and when a PR is in breach of the RO, is how much in breach of the RO the PR is. The bigger the breach, the bigger the risk of strict scrutiny, and the bigger the risk of a negative outcome (being "Reported," possibly losing PR status).

I do not mean to dive too deeply into the subject of tipping points and risk assessment, here, which is complicated with lots of tangents, and it risks getting bogged down in game-theory, which is above the pay grade of many university level mathematics professors, let alone those of us wrangling with the Canadian immigration system. Which again is why the consensus here generally sticks to what is simple, like when in breach of the RO do not leave Canada and do not apply for a PR card.

But recognizing tipping points, and related pitfalls, can be important for a PR is seriously considering options that involve additional risk.

Foremost a reminder (apologies for harping on this), and this very much goes to the OP's further queries, most veteran participants here rightly emphasize (1) AVOIDING RISKS if possible (such as: if in breach of the RO, do not leave Canada and do not apply for a PR card), or (2) at the least choosing the LOWEST RISK option (such as: if abroad and in RO breach, return to Canada sooner rather than later). But real life has wrinkles, stuff happens, real people have competing priorities and variable needs. And after all, to live is to take risks.

For purposes of assessing risks there is a tendency to ask what are the odds it will be OK versus NOT OK. Like, if I am in breach of the RO by a little, but now well settled in Canada, still have a valid PR card, and need to take a short trip abroad, will I be OK when I return or Reported? But real life risk assessment is a lot more complicated than that, which again risks getting into game-theory, and no, no, no, we do not want to go there (piercing headache just thinking about it).

But tipping points also loom large in how things can go and can be a key factor when considering taking options involving risks, in particular for a PR in breach considering taking the risk of relying on H&C relief, whether to apply for a new PR card early, or traveling abroad while in RO breach. As mentioned, repeatedly, we cannot quantify the probabilities any more precisely than ballpark generalities. The bigger the breach, the bigger the risk of a negative outcome, is about the best we can do.

However, the overall risk can be misleading. Which makes it all the more difficult to grasp any quantifiable sense of the probabilities. Barely skimming the surface of this, one example: as outlined above, the OP's spouse had overall very good odds there would be no RO problem when she arrived here last September, DESPITE being in breach at the time. And a big positive factor was the size of the breach; just 31 days.

Leading to one example of a major tipping point: the difference between a casual waive through at the PoE versus a decision to prepare a 44(1) inadmissibility Report. That is the difference between:

-- casual questions, perhaps including some in regards to the RO, perhaps including an informal recognition of H&C factors, resulting in a decision to allow the PR to proceed without further examination as to RO compliance, VERSUS​

-- more thorough RO compliance related questions resulting in a decision to prepare a 44(1) inadmissibility Report​

So both the first and second officers (the second technically acting as the Minister's Delegate) calculate RO credit. For the PR still within five years of landing, days left on the calendar to the fifth year anniversary count. A practical approach is to simply subtract the number of days outside Canada, since landing, from 1825. If that sum is 729 or less, there is a RO breach. If that sum is 730 or more, no breach. (That is, if absent for less than 1096 days, no breach; if more than that, in breach).

Bringing this around to considering the size of the breach. And back to the observation that the overall odds can be misleading. And to the tipping point. But not overlooking that the decision made by the first officer (and similarly the PIL officer before that), about whether to even ask detailed questions about RO compliance, likely were at least partially influenced by the number of days short, generally (while probably also influenced by some consideration for H&C factors, like covid, that being the obvious one these days).

Finally getting to the point: once the 44(1) Report is prepared, and how it goes depends on weighing H&C factors, suddenly the "size of the breach" can be, seems it usually is, subject to a very different calculation.

Using the wife's example, arriving last September: At that time, for purposes of calculating RO compliance, she had 699 days RO credit (and still that today). And a rough estimate of that could easily have been (probably was) a positive factor in the PIL officer's decision to waive her into Canada without further RO-related questioning. Or, even if she was questioned some in Secondary, still a significant factor in waiving her through without a more strict assessment, without preparing a 44(1) Report. Which, as noted, is consistent with lots of recent anecdotal reporting. Fairly easy to forecast good odds in that scenario.

BUT . . . at that time, in September 2021, she had been IN Canada just 136 days . . . way, way short of 730 days. That is not just 31 days short. That is nearly 600 days short. Big breach. Negative H&C factor.

A few years ago, when I first saw an IAD panel denying an appeal in significant part based on a "big breach" of the RO, and not giving the PR any credit for days left until the PR's fifth year anniversary, I thought that was wrong. I thought the PR should have been given that credit in the H&C assessment. Illustrating I am no expert and I get some of this stuff wrong (but always working on getting it right). After seeing this show up in other cases I understood the calculus better. There is the technical side of it, of course, that once a 44(1) Report is prepared, days in Canada after that do not count. So, yeah, technically in the calculation of RO compliance, before a 44(1) Report is prepared the PR gets credit for days left on the calendar to the fifth year anniversary, but once the Report is prepared those days do not count (unless the Report is set aside) even if the PR actually is in Canada those days, let alone could be. But just within orbit of why the size of the breach matters, it is not just about how far off compliance the PR is, but about looking at the nature and extent to which the PR is tied to and vested in a life in Canada. There is a clear difference, in this connection, between the PR who has spent 136 days in Canada and the PR who has actually spent 699 days in Canada, even though for purposes of whether or not there was a breach of the RO, they both got 699 days credit.

Which leads back to the biggest tipping point: 730 days credit. And why veteran participants are so focused on meeting that threshold. Skip the convoluted pitfall-ridden nuances. Ignore my lengthy analysis. Avoid the risk. Stay on the compliance side of the equation. Otherwise, even if the odds of things going OK are good, the chances otherwise are many, and what could tip things that way too often less than obvious.

I am living in Canada. I landed ini Mar 2018 and I'll be completing my 730/5yrs around Feb2023. So Can I apply for renewal? It says that you can apply before 9 months when your PR Card will be expiring. I will easily complete 730 days before Mar2023 or Do I need to wait till Feb 2023 to complete 730 days first? Please let me know

 

[scylla]

I am living in Canada. I landed ini Mar 2018 and I'll be completing my 730/5yrs around Feb2023. So Can I apply for renewal? It says that you can apply before 9 months when your PR Card will be expiring. I will easily complete 730 days before Mar2023 or Do I need to wait till Feb 2023 to complete 730 days first? Please let me know

You cannot apply until you have at least 730 days. Do not submit your application before you have at least 730 days.

 

[ramansingh05]

You cannot apply until you have at least 730 days. Do not submit your application before you have at least 730 days.

Thanks for the update. 1 more ques, I am planning to go out of Canada for 40 days or so. I know I'll be short of days and will apply post completing 730 days. Will there be any problem in coming back?

 

[dpenabill]

@ramansingh05 . . . short answers:

-- as long as you are in compliance with the RO, you can apply for a new PR card, even if you have not yet spent 730 days in Canada; comes with a caveat --​

-- -- it may nonetheless be prudent to wait, and this is especially so if you were to leave Canada for any appreciable time after applying​

​

-- as long as you have a valid PR card, no problem traveling back to Canada​

​

-- as long as you are in RO compliance when you arrive at a Port-of-Entry, no risk (barring challenges to your accounting of time in Canada) of a RO compliance related admissibility issue​

Reminders:

-- as long as a PR has not been outside Canada more than 1095 days since landing, the PR is in RO compliance​

​

-- after the fifth year anniversary of day of landing, to be in RO compliance a PR needs to have been IN Canada for at least 730 days within the preceding five years, and this is as of any day, every day​

I am living in Canada. I landed ini Mar 2018 and I'll be completing my 730/5yrs around Feb2023. So Can I apply for renewal? It says that you can apply before 9 months when your PR Card will be expiring. I will easily complete 730 days before Mar2023 or Do I need to wait till Feb 2023 to complete 730 days first? Please let me know

As long as you have NOT been outside Canada for more than 1095 days since the day of your landing, you are complying with the Residency Obligation, and eligible for a PR card. So, no, it is NOT necessary to wait to actually be in Canada at least 730 days before making the application.

It is, nonetheless, probably prudent to wait. Waiting should reduce the risk of non-routine processing (but you are obviously cutting-it-close, so there is an elevated risk of non-routine processing and delays anyway).

As general advice (noting that advice is something I try hard to avoid giving), I do not disagree with @scylla:

You cannot apply until you have at least 730 days. Do not submit your application before you have at least 730 days.

Prudent advice. But in terms of meeting the eligibility requirements for a new PR card, that is NOT NECESSARY. Again, prudent but not necessary.

That is (longer explanation):

I do not disagree with the general advice that, prior to the fifth year anniversary of the day of landing, a PR wait until they have actually spent at least 730 days in Canada since landing, before applying for a new PR card. This is the SAFE approach. It is NOT necessary, but it reduces the risk of non-routine processing that would delay actually getting a new PR card. Not much point in applying sooner, just because one "can," just because one is eligible, if the application gets referred to non-routine processing resulting in a lengthy delay in actually getting a new card.

But as long as the PR is in compliance with the Residency Obligation and will not be outside Canada in the next coming months so long as to no longer be in compliance, they are eligible for a new PR card. So they CAN apply without risk of any action that could lead to a loss of PR status. And as long as the PR has not been outside Canada more than 1095 days since landing, they are in RO compliance.

After the fifth year anniversary, it is more important to not apply for a new PR card unless the PR has been in Canada for at least 730 days within the preceding five years, as of the date the application is made (and as long as the PR does not leave Canada after that for a period of time that will result in less than 730 days within the preceding five years of ANY day). Even this is subject to some wiggle room, but that's a complicated tangent.

Re: "completing" the 730days/5yrs Residency Obligation:

There is no such thing as "completing" the 730days/5yrs Residency Obligation. Every day is a different calculation. I understand what most people mean by this, and this expression is so common it is how complying with the RO is typically referred to.

And among the more common scenarios, the PR who finally comes to Canada after a soft landing and stays two years straight, that individual will then be in RO compliance for the next three years regardless of absences in the meantime. So in practical terms it probably feels like they have "completed" the 2/5 RO.

But again, the calculation of RO compliance is different each day. Prior to the fifth year anniversary, a PR is in RO compliance so long as the PR has not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days. As of and after the fifth year anniversary, the RO is only in compliance with the RO if they have credit** for at least 730 days presence in Canada within the preceding five years, as of any day (although it only matters for days it gets calculated, like the date of arrival at a PoE, the date a PR card application is made, or the date of some other RO compliance examination).

** "Credit" can be based on qualifying for one of the exceptions in addition to days actually in Canada.

I am planning to go out of Canada for 40 days or so. I know I'll be short of days and will apply post completing 730 days. Will there be any problem in coming back?

So this is where some might say the "rubber meets the road," and it depends on what you mean by "short of days," and what you mean by "any problem in coming back."

The latter first: if you have a valid PR card, and a valid passport, that is what you need to come back to Canada. Meaning you should be able to board a plane, at least in terms of immigration status screening, that will fly you to Canada. Does not matter if you are in RO compliance as long as you have a valid PR card. If for any reason you do not have a valid PR card, such as you lose it or some contingency keeps you abroad so long the card expires, then (with exceptions) you will need a PR TD to return to Canada (and for that, being in RO compliance is important).

If by "problem" you mean whether there will be issues at the Port-of-Entry regarding RO compliance, upon your arrival, odds are no, even if you are short a few days. But of course even PRs in compliance may be asked questions, examined, so that officials can determine if there is an issue. Should be obvious, the more the PR is cutting-it-close, the bigger the risk of questioning. Risk of being "Reported" is nonetheless low even for a PR a little in breach if the PR is returning to a home in Canada after a relatively short absence abroad. Factors increasing risks are discussed at length in many threads here.

Re "short of days:"

If you mean you have not yet spent 730 days in Canada since landing, that is not actually being short UNLESS you have been outside Canada more than 1095 days since landing.

"Short of days" means:

-- PR has spent more than 1095 days outside Canada between date of landing and the fifth year anniversary of landing, or​

-- after the fifth year anniversary of landing, the PR has spent less than 730 days in Canada during the preceding five years​

If you are short of days in this respect, there is of course a risk of not just being questioned but a risk a 44(1) Report will be prepared. That's true even if you have a brand new PR card, although a new PR card dramatically reduces the risk of even being questioned, especially if the PR has an established home in Canada and is returning after a relatively short trip abroad. Here again, risk factors are discussed at length in many threads.

 

[ramansingh05]

@ramansingh05 . . . short answers:

-- as long as you are in compliance with the RO, you can apply for a new PR card, even if you have not yet spent 730 days in Canada; comes with a caveat --​

-- -- it may nonetheless be prudent to wait, and this is especially so if you were to leave Canada for any appreciable time after applying​

​

-- as long as you have a valid PR card, no problem traveling back to Canada​

​

-- as long as you are in RO compliance when you arrive at a Port-of-Entry, no risk (barring challenges to your accounting of time in Canada) of a RO compliance related admissibility issue​

Reminders:

-- as long as a PR has not been outside Canada more than 1095 days since landing, the PR is in RO compliance​

I do not disagree with the general advice that, prior to the fifth year anniversary of the day of landing, a PR wait until they have actually spent at least 730 days in Canada since landing, before applying for a new PR card. This is the SAFE approach. It is NOT necessary, but it reduces the risk of non-routine processing that would delay actually getting a new PR card. Not much point in applying sooner, just because one "can," just because one is eligible, if the application gets referred to non-routine processing resulting in a lengthy delay in actually getting a new card.

But as long as the PR is in compliance with the Residency Obligation and will not be outside Canada in the next coming months so long as to no longer be in compliance, they are eligible for a new PR card. So they CAN apply without risk of any action that could lead to a loss of PR status. And as long as the PR has not been outside Canada more than 1095 days since landing, they are in RO compliance.

After the fifth year anniversary, it is more important to not apply for a new PR card unless the PR has been in Canada for at least 730 days within the preceding five years, as of the date the application is made (and as long as the PR does not leave Canada after that for a period of time that will result in less than 730 days within the preceding five years of ANY day). Even this is subject to some wiggle room, but that's a complicated tangent.

Re: "completing" the 730days/5yrs Residency Obligation:

There is no such thing as "completing" the 730days/5yrs Residency Obligation. Every day is a different calculation. I understand what most people mean by this, and this expression is so common it is how complying with the RO is typically referred to.

And among the more common scenarios, the PR who finally comes to Canada after a soft landing and stays two years straight, that individual will then be in RO compliance for the next three years regardless of absences in the meantime. So in practical terms it probably feels like they have "completed" the 2/5 RO.

But again, the calculation of RO compliance is different each day. Prior to the fifth year anniversary, a PR is in RO compliance so long as the PR has not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days. As of and after the fifth year anniversary, the RO is only in compliance with the RO if they have credit** for at least 730 days presence in Canada within the preceding five years, as of any day (although it only matters for days it gets calculated, like the date of arrival at a PoE, the date a PR card application is made, or the date of some other RO compliance examination).

** "Credit" can be based on qualifying for one of the exceptions in addition to days actually in Canada.



So this is where some might say the "rubber meets the road," and it depends on what you mean by "short of days," and what you mean by "any problem in coming back."

The latter first: if you have a valid PR card, and a valid passport, that is what you need to come back to Canada. Meaning you should be able to board a plane, at least in terms of immigration status screening, that will fly you to Canada. Does not matter if you are in RO compliance as long as you have a valid PR card. If for any reason you do not have a valid PR card, such as you lose it or some contingency keeps you abroad so long the card expires, then (with exceptions) you will need a PR TD to return to Canada (and for that, being in RO compliance is important).

If by "problem" you mean whether there will be issues at the Port-of-Entry regarding RO compliance, upon your arrival, odds are no, even if you are short a few days. But of course even PRs in compliance may be asked questions, examined, so that officials can determine if there is an issue. Should be obvious, the more the PR is cutting-it-close, the bigger the risk of questioning. Risk of being "Reported" is nonetheless low even for a PR a little in breach if the PR is returning to a home in Canada after a relatively short absence abroad. Factors increasing risks are discussed at length in many threads here.

Re "short of days:"

If you mean you have not yet spent 730 days in Canada since landing, that is not actually being short UNLESS you have been outside Canada more than 1095 days since landing.

"Short of days" means:

-- PR has spent more than 1095 days outside Canada between date of landing and the fifth year anniversary of landing, or​

-- after the fifth year anniversary of landing, the PR has spent less than 730 days in Canada during the preceding five years​

If you are short of days in this respect, there is of course a risk of not just being questioned but a risk a 44(1) Report will be prepared. That's true even if you have a brand new PR card, although a new PR card dramatically reduces the risk of even being questioned, especially if the PR has an established home in Canada and is returning after a relatively short trip abroad. Here again, risk factors are discussed at length in many threads.

Well thanks for such explannation dpenabill. I have below followup questions:
1: If I'll be going out and come back in Dec 2022 and I'll be short approx 10 days. Will there be any problem at PoE or my status.
2: what questions they ask if there is any short days? and what actions can they take.
3: what exactly is 44(1) report? For ex if they prepare this report and I'll come back to my home after PoE is checked then what will be consequences for that. I want to understand what exactly it means.
4: If I apply my PR renewal now(I'll be completing 730 days in Feb 1st week (if DONOT travel back) and then fly in Nov so any concerns with that?

Please help me with above answers. Many thanks for all your clarifications.

 

[dpenabill]

Apologies in advance for what may come across as lecturing.

I am not a Canadian lawyer, but I think it is safe to guess what a lawyer would say, much in line with what @scylla advised: comply with the PR Residency Obligation, but if you are in BREACH of the RO (what you call "short of days") STAY in Canada and do not make a PR card application unless and until you have stayed long enough to be (and to remain) in compliance with the RO.

You may find a lawyer who will, in effect, offer advice about taking chances otherwise, about how to more or less get away with failing to follow the rules. Generally, however, lawyers advise clients about what the rules are and how to avoid breaching them, or otherwise help clients deal with the consequences if they have.

Giving gamblers advice on how to gamble, that's a different game.

Well thanks for such explannation dpenabill. I have below followup questions:
1: If I'll be going out and come back in Dec 2022 and I'll be short approx 10 days. Will there be any problem at PoE or my status.
2: what questions they ask if there is any short days? and what actions can they take.
3: what exactly is 44(1) report? For ex if they prepare this report and I'll come back to my home after PoE is checked then what will be consequences for that. I want to understand what exactly it means.
4: If I apply my PR renewal now(I'll be completing 730 days in Feb 1st week (if DONOT travel back) and then fly in Nov so any concerns with that?

Please help me with above answers. Many thanks for all your clarifications.

I meant it when I said I avoid giving advice. For lots of reasons. I am NO expert is a big one, but perhaps the real reason underlying even that is I do not have a crystal ball.

Other than the more technical question about what is a 44(1) Report, all your other questions are asking for predictions, asking what number will the ball land in on the roulette wheel if you gamble. Which brings up the few things I will give advice about. You may have already guessed it: don't gamble (acknowledging this is advice I too often do not follow myself).

You are essentially asking if you will get stopped by police, and if stopped a speeding ticket, if this coming Sunday you are driving 25k over the speed limit on the QEW between Niagara and Hamilton. And does it matter if you are diving a tan mid-size sedan or a black SUV or a red sports car? Been a while, but in the past I did that rather often (oh I have excuses), never stopped, no tickets. Unlike the logic too often employed in forums like this (the I-did-it and it-was-OK, so it-will-be-OK-for-you-too illogic), that does not mean you will not get stopped, not get a ticket. If you speed, there is a risk of getting a ticket; and as anyone who drives much in Canada is likely aware, there are many factors which influence the probabilities.

If you fail to comply with the PR Residency Obligation, that means you meet the definition of "Inadmissible." I assumed you understood that.

A PR who is inadmissible is, of course, at risk of authorities making decisions and taking actions that result in the loss of PR status. The probabilities vary, and they vary widely. There are various factors which influence the probabilities, most of which are obvious, like the more in breach of the RO (which, again, is what you refer to as being "short of days") the bigger the risk of being questioned, and if questioned the bigger the risk of negative decisions. Which I feel fairly confident you already understood as well.

I do not know the thinking behind @scylla's more definitive advice, but it makes sense, and it is consistent with what many others, with what probably most informed participants here advise, because it basically says if you do not want a speeding ticket, do not speed . . . that is, do not breach the RO, but if you do and you are in Canada, stay and do not do anything that will trigger a RO compliance examination unless and not until you are in compliance with the RO. Hence their advice to not make a PR card application until you are for sure in RO compliance, when you have been IN Canada 730 days within the preceding five years. Simple. Safe. No speeding tickets if you do not speed.

But, yeah, I do not want a speeding ticket but, like many and perhaps most drivers, I speed. I take the risk. I have been driving way longer than a half century, so I have a bit of experience that helps me calculate the risks, I know the risk-factors, so it has been a couple decades since I last got a speeding ticket (none ever in Canada, touch wood, even though I'm not superstitious, cause I heard being superstitious could mean bad luck), and that was just one of a very few over the course of my life (I tend to be cautious about complying with law, and in later years have slowed down considerably).

There are scores and scores of discussions here about a wide, wide range of circumstances and situations in which PRs have failed to comply with the RO, and what that means, what factors influence the risk of enforcement, the mechanisms or procedures of enforcement, the particular proceedings that are involved, and potential outcomes, ranging from no enforcement to strict enforcement, waiver of a breach for H&C reasons to enforceable Removal Orders terminating PR status.

Which brings up "what exactly is 44(1) Report?" It is kind of like a speeding ticket: it is what a CBSA or IRCC official prepares when they identify a PR's breach of the RO, writing up a PR for being Inadmissible based on breaching the RO. It is the formal start of the process for determining whether to issue a Removal Order (a decision terminating PR status, subject to appeal) or determine there are reasons why the PR should be allowed to keep status despite being, as you say, "short of days" (going over the speed limit, as in, one might say, over the absence from Canada limit).

I do not know what the odds are you will even encounter RO compliance questioning at a PoE, let alone the odds a Report will be prepared, let alone the odds that will have this or that outcome. The odds of a problem are probably very low for a small breach by a PR who appears to be well settled and living in Canada. As I previously referenced, there are many discussions in this forum where the various risk-factors are discussed. There are also several discussions in which the particular procedures involved in the process commenced by the preparation of a 44(1) Report are detailed. It's a substantial and somewhat complicated subject all its own. If you want to know more to help you decide whether to gamble on breaching the RO, I suggest you do the homework, search for and read some discussions here.

 

[ramansingh05]

Apologies in advance for what may come across as lecturing.

I am not a Canadian lawyer, but I think it is safe to guess what a lawyer would say, much in line with what @scylla advised: comply with the PR Residency Obligation, but if you are in BREACH of the RO (what you call "short of days") STAY in Canada and do not make a PR card application unless and until you have stayed long enough to be (and to remain) in compliance with the RO.

You may find a lawyer who will, in effect, offer advice about taking chances otherwise, about how to more or less get away with failing to follow the rules. Generally, however, lawyers advise clients about what the rules are and how to avoid breaching them, or otherwise help clients deal with the consequences if they have.

Giving gamblers advice on how to gamble, that's a different game.



I meant it when I said I avoid giving advice. For lots of reasons. I am NO expert is a big one, but perhaps the real reason underlying even that is I do not have a crystal ball.

Other than the more technical question about what is a 44(1) Report, all your other questions are asking for predictions, asking what number will the ball land in on the roulette wheel if you gamble. Which brings up the few things I will give advice about. You may have already guessed it: don't gamble (acknowledging this is advice I too often do not follow myself).

You are essentially asking if you will get stopped by police, and if stopped a speeding ticket, if this coming Sunday you are driving 25k over the speed limit on the QEW between Niagara and Hamilton. And does it matter if you are diving a tan mid-size sedan or a black SUV or a red sports car? Been a while, but in the past I did that rather often (oh I have excuses), never stopped, no tickets. Unlike the logic too often employed in forums like this (the I-did-it and it-was-OK, so it-will-be-OK-for-you-too illogic), that does not mean you will not get stopped, not get a ticket. If you speed, there is a risk of getting a ticket; and as anyone who drives much in Canada is likely aware, there are many factors which influence the probabilities.

If you fail to comply with the PR Residency Obligation, that means you meet the definition of "Inadmissible." I assumed you understood that.

A PR who is inadmissible is, of course, at risk of authorities making decisions and taking actions that result in the loss of PR status. The probabilities vary, and they vary widely. There are various factors which influence the probabilities, most of which are obvious, like the more in breach of the RO (which, again, is what you refer to as being "short of days") the bigger the risk of being questioned, and if questioned the bigger the risk of negative decisions. Which I feel fairly confident you already understood as well.

Which brings up "what exactly is 44(1) Report?" It is kind of like a speeding ticket: it is what a CBSA or IRCC official prepares when they identify a PR's breach of the RO, writing up a PR for being Inadmissible based on breaching the RO. It is the formal start of the process for determining whether to issue a Removal Order (a decision terminating PR status, subject to appeal) or determine there are reasons why the PR should be allowed to keep status despite being, as you say, "short of days" (going over the speed limit, as in, one might say, over the absence from Canada limit).

I do not know what the odds are you will even encounter RO compliance questioning at a PoE, let alone the odds a Report will be prepared, let alone the odds that will have this or that outcome. The odds of a problem are probably very low for a small breach by a PR who appears to be well settled and living in Canada. As I previously referenced, there are many discussions in this forum where the various risk-factors are discussed. There are also several discussions in which the particular procedures involved in the process commenced by the preparation of a 44(1) Report are detailed. It's a substantial and somewhat complicated subject all its own. If you want to know more to help you decide whether to gamble on breaching the RO, I suggest you do the homework, search for and read some discussions here.

Thank you so much @dpenabill , I got your point. Its actually not renewing PR as of now. Its about the going out and coming back.

 

[Ponga]

Thank you so much @dpenabill , I got your point. Its actually not renewing PR as of now. Its about the going out and coming back.

WOW! It's about the possibility /risk of being reported for non-compliance when re-entering Canada.

 

[ramansingh05]

WOW! It's about the possibility /risk of being reported for non-compliance when re-entering Canada.

?? Can you elaborate if its a question